Review of the
1998
Buffalo, NY
1996
Windsor, ON
1994
Detroit Ml
Prepared for:
Environment Canada
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by:
Ecologistics Limited
September, 1999
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 2
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW 2
1,3 REVIEW APPROACH AND SCOPE 2
1.4 REVIEW ISSUES 3
1.5 REVIEW METHODOLOGY 4
1.5.1 INTERVIEWS 4
1.5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW , 5
2.0 PROFILE OF SOLEC 6
2.1 BACKGROUND , 6
2.2 SOLEC 94 6
2.3 SOLEC 96 7
2.4 SOLEC 98 7
2.5 PROFILE OF SOLEC PARTICIPANTS 94, 96, 98 8
3.0 REVIEW FINDINGS 10
3.1 PRIMARY OBJECTIVES OF SOLEC 10
3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF SOLEC 14
3.3 SOLEC'S PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 19
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 23
5.0 REFERENCES 25
Annex I Review of Terms of Reference
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of a review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conferences (SOLEC). This review was undertaken by an independent review team,
Ecoiogistics Limited, for Environment Canada (EC) and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It includes a brief description of SOLEC, a
summary of the review approach and methodology, review findings, and
recommendations.
The scope of the review was binational. Information was gathered from governments,
agencies, organizations and individuals in Canada and the United States. The review
methodology was designed to address three themes: Primary Objectives of SOLEC,
Effectiveness of SOLEC, and SOLEC's Program Management.
The review found that the primary objectives of SOLEC are still relevant, although some
minor modification to their wording could improve relevancy to actual conference
outcomes. Individual conferences are well organized and succeeded in meeting their
stated objectives. SOLEC has contributed to increasing awareness of environmental
issues and challenges within the Basin. However, there is ambiguity concerning how
SOLEC fits in with other initiatives in the Basin, particularly Lake-wide Management
Plans. To date, SOLEC has not significantly addressed the effectiveness of
government programs in achieving results under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The focus on developing a comprehensive suite of indicators should
improve the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of government actions in the future.
The principal recommendation from the review calls for the development of a strategic
plan and vision for SOLEC. This plan would:
review the primary objectives of SOLEC;
clarify the role and expectations of SOLEC (and indicators development) with
respect to other initiatives and programs in the Basin, particularly LaMPs;
lay out the expected outcomes or goals for SOLEC with respect to the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement reporting requirements; and,
develop a framework for planning future conferences to ensure that conference
objectives and tangible outcomes are linked to the vision.
Other recommendations focus on increasing the engagement of non-government and
municipal stakeholders at the conferences, and on putting a greater emphasis on
collecting feedback from conference participants to determine more conclusively the
utility of the conference and conference materials in managing the ecosystem.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC)
Page 1 of 25
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report presents the findings of a review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conferences (SOLEC). This review was undertaken by an independent review team,
Ecologistics Limited, for Environment Canada (EC) and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It includes a brief description of SOLEC, a
summary of the review approach and methodology, and review findings and
recommendations. Annexes containing the findings from the two lines of inquiry -
interviews and a limited literature review - are included.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW
Following SOLEC 1998, the Great Lakes Binational Executive Committee (BEC), which
has oversight responsibility for SOLEC, requested that a review of SOLEC be
undertaken. John Mills, Canadian Co-Chair of BEC stated, "it is appropriate at this
stage to do a third party review of how well SOLEC is meeting its objectives and how
well it fits into the mosaic of Great Lakes activities. We need to look at how SOLEC fits
in with the International Joint Commission's biennial meetings and make sure they are
compatible and work together" (Young and Stadler-Salt, 1999).
The intent of this review is to determine the degree to which participants in SOLEC
believe it is achieving the expected results and to use this feedback as a basis for
helping to determine its future direction.
1.3 REVIEW APPROACH AND SCOPE
The review was directed by Great Lakes and Corporate Affairs Branch, Environment
Canada in conjunction with representatives from EPA. The role of these groups was to
establish the terms of reference and provide assistance and feedback regarding the
overall direction, methods and scope of the review. The terms of reference were
produced by EC and EPA and approved by BEC. Ecologistics Limited conducted the
review within these terms of reference. The terms of reference are located in Annex 1.
The scope of the review was binational. Information was gathered from governments,
agencies, organizations and individuals in Canada and the United States. The review
methodology was designed to address three themes:
SMWf* Ma Kenan* CMocnc*
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 2 of 25
-------
Primary Objectives of SOLEC;
Effectiveness of SOLEC; and
SOLEC's Program Management.
Specific issues addressed by the review are described below.
1.4 REVIEW ISSUES
The following issues are identified in the terms of reference as the central questionr :o
be addressed in the review.
* Primary Objectives of SOLEC
Issue 1: Are the four primary objectives still relevant?
Issue 2: Do the objectives complement the Parties' (EC's and EPA's) program
results?
Issue 3: Should SOLEC's objectives be modified to maximize its contribution and,
if so, what modifications are required?
* SOLEC's Effectiveness
Issue 4: Did SOLEC 94 meet its objective of assessing the state of the lakes
against a set of broad based ad hoc indicators and did this objective
support SOLEC's primary objectives?
Issue 5: Did SOLEC 96 meet its objective of determining the state of the
nearshore ecosystem and the human impacts on it and did this
objective support SOLEC's primary objectives?
Issue 6: Did SOLEC 98 meet its objective to begin the process of establishing a
comprehensive, easily understood suite of indicators that will represent
the state of major ecosystem components across the whole Great
Lakes basin and did this objective support SOLEC's primary
objectives?
Issue 7: Has SOLEC had an impact on decision-makers such as agencies and
industry?
Issue 8: Has SOLEC evolved to meet changing priorities?
Issue 9: Are changes required to maximize SOLEC's effectiveness and, if so,
what changes are required?
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 3 of 25
-------
* SOLEC's Program Management
Issue 10: Does SOLEC engage program management/staff effectively?
Issue 11: Is clear guidance and direction given to presenters and participants
involved in the conferences?
Issue 12: Is BEC or the Co-chairs effectively involved in key decision-making?
Issue 13: Are changes required to maximize SOLEC's efficiency and, if so, what
changes are required?
1.5 REVIEW METHODOLOGY
Several methodological tools were employed to address all aspects of the review
issues. The two lines of inquiry were interviews and a limited literature review.
1.5.1 INTERVIEWS
Personal or telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of the following
groups as determined by the Project Authority and Ecologistics Limited:
SOLEC participants who have attended at least two conferences;
SOLEC paper authors/presenters;
SOLEC Steering Committee (SSC);
Binational Executive Committee (BEC); and
* Non-returning participants of SOLEC,1
Three separate survey instruments were developed to address the review issues: 1)
main interview guide, 2} management and administration interview guide, and 3) non-
returning participant guide. The main guide was administered to genera! SOLEC
participants, people who prepared and/or presented papers at SOLEC, and SSC and
BEC members. The management and administration guide was administered to
members of SSC and BEC. The non-returning participants guide was administered to
people who attend attended one SOLEC, but did not attend subsequent events.
Each interview guide was developed for use during personal or telephone interviews.
The guides were designed to be sufficiently robust that they could also be used as
questionnaires. The intent was to provide respondents with the option of answering the
1 A non-returning participant is defined as an individual who attended only one SOLEC and did not return
to subsequent events, although invited to do so.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 4 of 25
-------
questions at their leisure and then returning the guide to the consultants. The interview
guides are presented in Annex II.
A total of 50 individuals were suggested for interviews. Given the limited timeframe for
the review, the list was prioritized to 40 in an attempt to ensure that interviews would be
conducted with key representatives. The following table provides a summary of the
different categories of respondents who participated in the review.
Respondent Category
SOLEC Steering Committee
Binational Executive
Committee
SOLEC participants attending
at least two conferences
SOLEC paper
authors/presenters
Non-returning participants
Total
Interviews
Conducted
11
3
15
3
8
40
Scheduling conflicts and individual availability were the main reasons that not all of the
suggested interviews were completed.
The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based largely on the
data collected and analyzed through the interview process. Interview results are
presented in Annex III.
1.5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
A limited literature review was conducted. It was not the purpose of this review to
assess the accuracy, appropriateness or general content of conference papers and
proceedings from individual events. Consequently, the literature review focused on
references to SOLEC in other reports, primarily from the UC. A limited number of
internal memoranda and e-mail correspondence were also reviewed. Results of this
line of investigation are contained in Annex IV.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC)
Page 5 of 25
-------
2.0 PROFILE OF SOLEC
2.1 BACKGROUND
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) are hosted by Environment
Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the two
countries. The conferences are held biennially in response to a reporting requirement
arising from the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLVVQA). SOLEC is intended
to provide a broad forum for the exchange of scientific-based information on the
condition of the Great Lakes. A main goal of the conferences is to engage a large and
diverse range of people in governments, industry and the not-for-profit sector who make
decisions that affect the lakes. Conferences have been convened in 1994, 1996 and
1998. Preliminary planning is underway for SOLEC 2000.
SOLEC was established as a working group under the auspices of the Binational
Executive Committee to meet the following objectives:
1) Provide information on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem for the purposes
of strengthening decision making and management within the Basin.
2) Develop support for an integrated system of environmental information to direct
plans and programs.
3) Provide information on the existing Great Lakes strategies and build cooperative
actions needed to strengthen and implement them,
4) Provide a forum for improved communication and network building within the
Basin.
The following sections provide overview descriptions of each of the three conferences
held to date.
2.2 SOLEC 94
The first State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference was held October 26 to 28, 1994 in
Dearborn, Michigan. Its purpose was to assess the state of the lakes against a set of
broad-based indicators. Six working papers and an integration paper were developed
for discussion at the conference, then revised after input from conference participants.
The six background papers for this conference were:
A Changing Great Lakes Economy: Economic and Environmental Linkages;
Effects of Great Lakes Basin Environmental Contaminants on Human Health;
» Aquatic Community Health of the Great Lakes;
Toxic Contaminants;
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 6 of 25
-------
Aquatic Habitat and Wetlands of the Great Lakes; and
Nutrients: Trends and System Response.
The revised papers formed the basis for the State of the Great Lakes Report -1995.
2.3 SOLEC 96
The second State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference was held November>: .0 8,
1996 in Windsor, Ontario. The objective of this conference was to examine :ne state of
the nearshore ecosystem and the human impacts on it. The conference examined the
condition of the nearshore ecosystem in terms of the health of aquatic and terrestrial
communities, as well as physical, chemical and biological environments. Potential
stressors including exotic species and human activities together with associated
socioeconomic aspects were also reported. The state of knowledge on these issues
was addressed, including an evaluation of the existing information base.
Five background papers were prepared for the conference:
» Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes;
» Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes;
» Land by the Lakes: Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems;
» Impacts of Changing Land Use; and
» Information and Information Management.
In order to link together the issues raised in the various background papers an
integration paper was prepared. All papers were finalized after comments received
through the conference were incorporated. Subsequently, the State of the Great Lakes
Report -1997 was produced.
2.4 SOLEC 98
The third State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference was held October 21 to 23,1998 in
Buffalo, New York. The objective of this conference was to begin the process of
establishing a comprehensive and easily understood suite of indicators that would
represent the state of major ecosystem components across the Basin. The 94 and 96
conferences had both developed ad-hoc indicators based on expert opinion. These
indicators provided subjective assessments of the lake ecosystem condition in terms of
good, fair, and poor ratings.
With SOLEC 98, the Parties wanted to establish a consistent suite of indicators that
would objectively represent the state of the lakes as prescribed in Annex 11 of the
GLWQA. These indicators would be used every two years as a basis for reporting
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 7 of 25
-------
achievements under the Agreement. It was recognized that the core set of indicators
for SOLEC would draw upon and complement indicators being developed for Lakewide
Management Plans (LaMPs) and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs).
Presentations were made at plenary sessions that introduced conference participants to
the proposed core set of indicators. Indicators were presented and discussed for broad
components of the ecosystem including: open waters; nearshore waters; coastal
wetlands; nearshore terrestrial; land use; human health; and stewardship. The
conference also focused on Biodiversity Investment Areas (BIA). BIAs were first
suggested at SOLEC 96. Other presentations included a retrospective look at the
development of the 1987 GLWQA protocol and a review of the Parties' commitments
under the GLWQA.
Since SOLEC 98, the SSC has continued to revise and refine the proposed set of
indicators. Version 3 of "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Health" was released as a draft for review in May of 1999 (Bertram and Stadler-Salt,
1999).
2.5 PROFILE OF SOLEC PARTICIPANTS 94, 96, 98
The following table summarizes the participants from each SOLEC according to their
country of origin and the sector they represented.
Average attendance at the three conferences was 412. Federal governments
(Canadian and US) had the largest representation with approximately one-third of all
participants. Provincial and state governments comprised the next largest participant
group, averaging approximately 14% of participants. Municipal representation grew
from 2% in 1994 to approximately 20% in 1998. Combined, government (including IJC
representatives) participants comprised an average of approximately 60% of all
participants across the three conferences.
Within the non-governmental sector, industry had the largest representation
(approximately 9%), followed by academia and research groups. In aggregate,
participation by non-governmental groups has been increasing since 1994. Both
SOLEC 96 and 98 had twice as many non-governmental representatives in attendance
as did SOLEC 94.
SOLEC 96 had the largest registered attendance of all three events for both
government and non-government representatives.
San tt tm wn Eccmmi CMmtt
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 8 of 25
-------
Participant Profiles - SOLEC 94. 96 & 98
Participation By Country:
Canada
United States
Mexico
Sweden
Lithuania
Not Specified
TOTAL
Participation By Sector:
Federal Government
Prov./State Government
Municipal Government
Quasi-Government/IJC
Industry
Academia/Research
Recreation/Wildlife/Conservation/Fishing
Environmental Groups
Public Advisory
Professional Assc./Societies
Foundations
Native/Aboriginal
Health
Media
Agriculture
Other
Unknown
TOTAL
9
Number of
Delegates
109
157
N/A
N/A
N/A
61
327
9
Number of
Delegates
112
45
5
30
32
15 j
4
13
4
3
2
4
3
2
2
4
47
327
4
Percent
33%
48%
N/A
N/A
N/A
19%
100%
4
Percent
34%
14%
2%
9%
10%
5%
1%
4%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
14%
100%
9
Number of
Delegates
216
263
3
N/A
N/A
482
9
Number of
Delegates
123
74
45
44
39
30
37
23
11
10
8
7
4
N/A
3
23
1
482
6
Percent
45.0%
55.0%
0.1%
N/A
N/A
100%
6
Percent
25.6%
15.4%
9.2%
9.1%
8.1% j
6,2%
7.6%
4.8%
2.3%
2.1% _j
1.7%
1.5%
0.8%
N/A
0.6%
4.8%
N/A
100%
9
Number of
Delegates
171
253
1
1
1
427
9
Number of
Delegates
154
60
19
32
30
38
18
20
10
N/A
N/A
10
5
4
25
N/A
427
8
Percent
40.00%
59.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
100%
8
Percent
36.07%
14.05%
19.00%
7.50%
7.00%
8.90%
4.20%
4.68%
2.34%
N/A
N/A
2.34%
1.17%
0.94%
0.47%
5.85%
N/A
100%
Source: Swaftmn and LURA Group, 1997, Young and Startler-San 1999 and 1994 SOLEC conference registration list
-------
3.0 REVIEW FINDINGS
The following section provides a summary of the review findings. Findings are
organized by review themes and issues. Results are based primarily on information
collected through the interviews. More detailed information is presented in the
Annexes.
3.1 PRIMARY OBJECTIVES OF SOLEC
The primary objectives of SOLEC remain relevant, but minor modifications
could improve relevancy.
The primary objectives of SOLEC are complementary to EC and EPA's
program results.
Are the four primary objectives still relevant?
SOLEC's primary objectives were approved by the BEC in 1992. The review concluded
that these objectives remain relevant. The objectives are fundamentally sound and are
relevant to pursue in the context of basin-wide ecosystem planning and monitoring.
The majority of the people interviewed felt that the objectives continue to be relevant to
the current situation in the Basin. The review of IJC reports found only supportive
comments with respect to the continued relevance of SOLEC's primary objectives.
Should SOLEC's objectives be modified to maximize its contribution and if
so, what modifications are required?
Notwithstanding the continued relevancy of SOLEC's primary objectives, some
modifications might be considered to increase or improve relevancy. A majority of
people who participated in the formal interviews were of the opinion that some
modifications to the objectives were in order.
Not all respondents made definitive suggestions for modifications. Of those making
suggestions, less than half thought that modifications should be made to Objectives 1,
2 and 3. Only a few respondents thought that changes should be made to Objective 4.
SMI a t* MB
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC)
Page 10 of 25
-------
Suggestions are provided on an objective by objective basis below.
Objective I
Provide information on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem for
the purpose of strengthening decision making and management in
the Basin.
The quality of the data and its unbiased presentation at SOLEC are of premium
value to the conference participants. There is real value in the science of
SOLEC. SOLEC is viewed as separate and distinct from some of the value-
laden rhetoric and debates that occur in the context of general public discourse
about environmental issues within the Basin. A comparison to the IJC biennial
meetings was noted by a number of people interviewed. This value could be
institutionalized into the conference's primary objectives by explicitly stating that
the 'information' be "science-based." This change would also provide an explicit
direction and expectation for the outcome of each conference.
A few participants in the review specifically noted that Objective 1 should include
some reference to the GLWQA. Others felt that the link to management and
decision-making was perhaps overstated, i.e., it is hard for a "conference" format
alone to affect behaviour.
Objective 2
Develop support for an integrated system of environmental
information to direct plans and programs.
Only a few suggestions were made for revising Objective 2. These centered on
the proactive portion of this statement related to the words "to direct." It was felt
that this was not being accomplished and that these words might be misleading.
It was suggested that the word "assist" might be more appropriate.
A small number of people interviewed noted that this objective was already being
addressed at the LaMP level.
A few respondents thought this objective needed to be strengthened by making
reference to specific management objectives and/or outcomes, and the
development of ecosystem/environmental "trend" data should be explicitly stated.
Efc. mM*.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 11 of 25
-------
Objective 3
Provide information on existing Great Lakes strategies and build
cooperative actions needed to strengthen and implement them.
Few specific changes were suggested for this objective. While fundamentally
relevant, this objective has received very little explicit attention at the
conferences. However, many people interviewed acknowledged that this
objective was perhaps the most difficult to address. A focus on programs and
their impacts may be useful for future conferences.
One respondent suggested, given current institutional arrangements, that this
objective needs to be seriously re-examined to determine if SOLEC is the correct
mechanism for implementation. Another respondent suggested that the "will" for
implementing this objective needs to come from the BEC.
Objective 4
Provide a forum of improved communication and network building
within the Basin,
No specific modifications or changes were suggested for increasing the
relevancy of Objective 4.
General Comments on Objectives
A few general comments were offered in respect to SOLEC's primary objectives.
The first concerns how SOLEC fits in with other initiatives in the Basin. Many
people interviewed during the course of the review indicated that there is
considerable confusion, particularly at the local and lake-level, on how SOLEC
fits functionally and institutionally with LaMPs and RAPs. It was observed that
work at the lake-level will ultimately be required to implement the data collection
needed for SOLEC indicators. Indicators are currently being developed through
LaMPs largely independent of the SOLEC initiative. The role of SOLEC vis a vis
other programs and initiatives in the Basin should be clarified.
The four primary objectives of SOLEC are stated in broad and general terms.
There is prescriptive language pertaining to decision making, ecosystem
management and program integration. As a consequence, disparate
expectations for the conference have been formed by many of the participants
and stakeholders throughout the Basin. For some, SOLEC is perceived largely
as an information provider. It is the only dedicated avenue currently available for
the provision, review and dissemination of basin-wide scientific date on the state
of the Basin ecosystem. It is viewed as a "tool" and a "forum" and it is left to the
discretion of the participants to use this tool in their work once they leave the
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 1 2 of 25
-------
conference. Others expect SOLEC to be more than an information and data
provider. For these individuals, SOLEC is viewed as the main vehicle for the
coordination and reporting on binational activities in surveillance and monitoring
for the Basin. In the absence of discrete and measurable objectives and
outcomes for the conference and its products, there will continue to be diff ig
viewpoints among conference participants and others as to the relevance
success and effectiveness of SOLEC.
Do the objectives complement the Parties' (EC's and EPA's) progrcr
results?
SSC and BEC respondents indicated that the four primary broad objectives of
SOLEC complement the program results of US EPA and Environment Canada.
Only one person interviewed from these groups did not think that SOLEC's
objectives were complementary.
SSC and BEC respondents were also asked to comment on the degree to which
SOLEC fulfilled reporting requirements under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. It was acknowledged by almost all respondents that SOLEC was
never intended to be a single vehicle to address all of the reporting requirements
of the Parties under the Agreement. When all of the requirements of all of the
annexes to the GLWQA are considered, it is difficult for a single reporting
mechanism to satisfy them completely.
The conferences have, by design, not particularly focused on program elements.
Many respondents saw this as the most significant gap with respect to GLWQA
reporting. Non SSC and BEC members interviewed during the review also
observed this. This is a future direction currently under strategic consideration
and development by the SSC. Incorporation of a focus on program reporting at
future events will address a deficiency noted frequently throughout the review.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 13 of 25
-------
3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF SOLEC
SOLEC 94, 96, and 98 have been successful in meeting their respective
objectives.
SOLEC has evolved to meet changing priorities.
Some organizations are using information from SOLEC in planning and
priority setting. However, SOLEC would be more useful to organizations if
effectiveness was increased.
SOLEC could be more effective if it was more closely linked to Great Lakes
programs, including planning, information sharing, data collection, and
communication.
Some sectors are under-represented at SOLEC.
Did SOLEC 94, 96 and 98 meet their objectives and did these objectives
support SOLEC's primary objectives?
The conference-specific objectives for each event were:
SOLEC 94: to assess the state of the Lakes against a set of broad-based ad hoc
indicators;
SOLEC 96: to determine the state of the nearshore ecosystem and the human
impacts on it;
SOLEC 98: to begin the process of establishing a comprehensive and easily
understood suite of indicators that will represent the state of major
ecosystem components across the whole Great Lakes basin.
Individual conferences have done a good job of meeting their objectives. Participants
interviewed from each of the three conferences, including non-returning participants,
almost unanimously reported that the conferences met the objectives set.
Additional respondent perspectives on the merits of individual conferences are
presented in Annex II.
Non-returning participants generally perceived SOLEC to be a well-organized event.
They indicated that it had been held in accessible locations, and that environmental
data of sufficient quantity and quality had been presented. No one from this group
stated that any aspect of conference organization, content, or format had influenced
their decisions to not attend subsequent SOLECs.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 14 of 25
-------
Has SOLEC had an impact on decision-makers such as agencies and
industry?
The majority of respondents interviewed indicated they felt that SOLEC had impacted
their organization. For example, some agency and industry representatives indicates
that they are using SOLEC information in their planning and priority setting.
The conferences have not systematically addressed program impacts or evaluatior
There is currently no mechanism in place to assess the degree to which SOLEC b
impacting decision making and priority setting. The modus operand! of the confer nee
format has been to provide information, and to encourage discussion and netwo? ng.
Program modifications are left to individuals and agencies to pursue independently. A
focus on agency responses and planning during break out sessions, including,
recommendations for action and follow-up, would assist in addressing this issue.
Has SOLEC evolved to meet changing priorities?
SOLEC (and the SSC in particular) has been successful at adapting the conference
programming and agenda in response to changing environmental and ecosystem
priorities in the Basin.
The SSC has been effective in focusing the themes of each conference. SOLEC 94
concentrated largely on the open water ecosystem where the most reliable trend data
was available at the time. SOLEC 96 brought an appreciation of the nearshore zone
and the human impacts (including land use and socioeconomic considerations). The
SSC has also been very successful at integrating emerging issues into the conference
in a scientific and credible manner. Examples of these issues include, exotic species,
land use impacts and Biodiversity Investment Areas (BIA).
Are changes required to maximize SOLEC's effectiveness and if so what
changes are required?
The review of effectiveness is divided into three areas: primary objectives, stakeholder
engagement, and conference process and outcomes.
Primary Objectives
The review found SOLEC's primary objectives to still be largely relevant since their
inception in 1992 (see Section 3.1). The review also focused on trying to ascertain the
effectiveness of SOLEC in achieving these objectives.
Taken collectively, the four primary objectives have been achieved to some degree.
The majority of people interviewed during the review support this statement. Less than
a quarter of those interviewed felt that the objectives had not been achieved. The
Great Lakes Science Advisory Board questioned the degree to which SOLEC is
Stttt 011* Uta fenMM Content*
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 15 of 25
-------
There is ambiguity in the role of SOLEC within the broad context of Great Lakes
programs and initiatives. There is a perceived lack of coordination and integration
between SOLEC and LaMPs in particular. This ambiguity is equally apparent in
Canada and the US. While LaMPs focus on lake specific initiatives, there nonetheless
appear to be considerable overlap between basic categories of activities with SOLEC.
The LaMPs are developing lake wide management plans. Although at different stages
of completion, lake wide plans are based on a set of measurable ecosystem objectives
and associated indicators designed to quantitatively measure the progress toward
achieving specific objectives. A parallel indicators exercise has been initiated by the
IJC. SOLEC's role, particularly in relation to LaMPs and other indicator projects in the
Basin, needs to be clarified. Increasing the amount of dialogue and input from the
LaMPs and in pre-conference planning should be encouraged.
A major success of SOLEC has been its role as an integrator and provider of quality
scientific data. An examination of the primary objectives suggests that SOLEC should
be doing more than this. During a number of the interviews it was noted that there did
not appear to be much continuity between conferences. Participants where left with a
"so what" feeling at the end of the event. Integration of reporting on government
programs would help to set the information provided in the context of ecosystem
management actions and priorities. Similarly, the production of action items and
recommendations for follow-up at the end of the conference would help provide a focus
and continuity between events.
A clear theme in the above comments is that respondents are looking to SOLEC to take
a stronger stance in addressing program issues. Integrating and coordinating the data
and the process of SOLEC with monitoring and surveillance programs in the Basin
would contribute to this. The literature review revealed a similar opinion coming from
the IJC's Science Advisory Board in 1996.
Several respondents also commented on the role of BEC with respect to SOLEC. It
was perceived that BEC, as the primary binational institution for the Parties to discuss
coordination and integration of Great Lakes programs, should take a more active role in
priority setting for SOLEC.
The non-returning participants group echoed some of general observations noted
above. Half of the non-returning group respondents perceived a lack of connectivity
between the data presented at SOLEC and policy/program planning and impacts.
Others want to see more strategic direction or change arising from SOLEC. These
people feel that "next steps" are missing at the end of each conference. The
conference is perceived to be only "information out" with no obvious strategizing and
little integration for the future.
The value of SOLEC as a communication vehicle should not be underestimated and
should be exploited. However, a strategic vision of how SOLEC fits into the broader
"ii« oi Hi I
-------
context of Great Lakes management, decision making and priority setting is missing
and should be developed.
3.3 SOLEC'S PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
The planning and execution ofSOLEC events are successful, including ths
provision of clear guidance to the authors of papers and presenters
The SOLEC Steering Committee is seen as effectively managing the
organization and delivery of the conference
BEC may want to consider a more active role in setting direction for SOLEC
Does SOLEC engage program management/staff effectively?
SOLEC delivers high quality, peer reviewed information in a professional manner. A
significant amount of time, energy and resources go into producing the papers,
preparing and rehearsing presentations and finalizing the documents following the
conference input. The successful integration and production of this material requires
the effort and cooperation of many individuals and organizations. The level of effort
expended by any one organization or individual varies considerably from one
conference to the next, recognizing that the federal governments carry the bulk of the
workload. Involvement ranged from personal time and effort to direction of significant
organizational staff resources. Activities included the preparation of background papers
and documents, as well as conference organization and general administration in
addition to SSC and BEC responsibilities.
The review examined the allocation of staff and other resources to SOLEC and whether
or not value was being achieved from these resource commitments. A strong majority
of individuals involved in preparing papers or managing staff resources for SOLEC
tasks believed that value was being achieved relative to level of involvement. There
were, however, a variety of reactions to the question. Some respondents perceived
little sustained impact and benefit following the conference. Others felt that staff time
and effort, although significant relative to competing interests, were well directed and
the products and process were easily justified.
Is clear guidance and direction given to presenters and participants
involved in the conferences?
SOLEC does a very good job of providing paper presenters and conference attendees
with clear guidelines, direction and expectations for their participation. Paper
presenters are required to rehearse presentations with conference organizers. People
interviewed during the review consistently gave high ratings and praise to the planning
and execution of the events.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 1 9 of 25
-------
successfully reporting on the state of the lakes ecosystem while it was praised in the
Eighth IJC biennial report (see Annex III).
Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they felt that each individual
SOLEC objective was being achieved. Objectives 1 and 4 received high achievement
ratings. Objective 4 received the highest overall rating. Objectives 2 and 3 were less
favorably rated. Up to one third of respondents rated these objectives as not being
achieved. Similar trends were reported in the delegates' survey from SOLEC 98
(Young and Stadler-Salt, 1999).
In summary, SOLEC appears to do a particularly good job of providing information and
being a forum for communication and networking. It is less effective at generating
support for integration of information for program planning, and not very effective at
reporting on how management should adjust existing programs and strategies.
Stakeholder Engagement
The size of the conference appears to be optimal. Fewer attendees would not provide
the necessary cross-section of stakeholders and many more would make the
organization of the working sessions difficult or unmanageable. The stated target
audience goal for the conference is "to reach a large audience of people in all levels of
government, corporate, and not-for-profit sectors who make decisions that affect the
lakes" (Bertram and Stadler-Salt, 1999). Many respondents praised SOLEC organizers
for their attempts at getting a broad cross-section of participants to attend.
Organizational demands and logistics of a breakout session format reinforce the
importance of controlling, to some degree, conference attendance. The "by invitation
only" attribute is not seen as limiting broad participation. The invitation list for each
conference is quite extensive (i.e., in the order of a few thousand people). Given the
target audience, attendance was not perceived as being overly exclusive.
As noted in Section 2.5, participation the conference is dominated by federal
government representatives and less so by provincial and state government
representatives. Stakeholders perceived as being generally under represented at the
conferences included local/municipal representatives, Tribes and First Nations, and
industry. While the participation of some of these groups has increased at specific
conferences, it was generally felt that they were under represented.
A limiting factor for some stakeholders (not-for-profit organizations and some
municipalities) may be the travel costs associated with attending the conference. The
effectiveness of engaging some of these stakeholders would likely increase if provision
was made from a special fund to cover a portion of their travel expenses.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 16 of 25
-------
The "public" was identified by BEC in 1992 as one of the stakeholders to be engaged at
the conference. If the public is defined as the average citizen within the Basin. Bather
than as being represented by not-for-profit organizations or municipal sector
representatives, clearly this group is not effectively represented. One way to n ire
effectively engage the general public in SOLEC is via the news media. Consideration
should be given to strategically increasing the media coverage of the event (e. ,
through press releases, a designated press room area at the conference, targi ;ng
media science and environment reporters, and/or coverage and broadcast bv j
Canadian Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) crew or a specialty channel). In sedition,
each SOLEC could develop a communications plan or strategy.
The review did not find any compelling evidence to suggest that SOLEC should
become an open forum. This function and opportunity is largely available through the
IJC biennial meetings and other avenues. SOLEC is as a science-based working
meeting on the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. Participants are provided with materials
in advance and are expected to review the material and come to the event to undertake
constructive work during the breakout sessions. Ensuring that participants receive
background materials well in advance of the conference to allow for adequate review
could enhance the effectiveness of the event.
The degree to which the conference is reaching the target audience was identified as
an issue during the review. The concern was that the conference is not reaching the
high level managers and decision-makers in government who actually have "influence"
over programs and priorities. Concern was also expressed that there is a need to be
more effective in reaching the local level (e.g., municipal/regional and industrial)
decision-makers. These groups have extensive involvement with, and influence on
specific actions that affect the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem (e.g., sewage systems,
industrial discharge, land use planning, shoreline development, etc.). These two
groups are included in the SOLEC invitation list, but are not perceived as being well
represented at the conference. In order to increase their participation, these groups
should be targeted using a more proactive approach.
Conference Process and Outcomes
During the course of the review, input was sought regarding suggested changes or
modifications to SOLEC that would assist in making the process and outcome more
relevant and useful to Great Lakes ecosystem management.
The primary focus of SOLEC is now on the development of indicators for tracking and
reporting on the state of the ecosystem across the Basin. Every two years, trends in
these indicators would be reported on at SOLEC. During the course of the review it
was suggested that a two-year reporting horizon would not be long enough to measure
reportable changes in most parameters at the basin scale. An alternative put forward
for consideration was to maintain the two year cycle but focus reporting on individual
lakes and connecting channels.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 17 of 25
-------
Non-returning participants indicated that nothing related to conference management or
implementation had influenced their decisions to not attend events.
Is BEC or the Co-chairs effectively involved in the key decision-making?
SSC Co-Chairs are considered quite effective in SOLEC management and decision-
making. Key decisions about SOLEC appear to be made largely within the SSC
structure with reporting back to BEC. Several people interviewed suggested that BEC
is not very active in providing direction or prioritization to SOLEC planning. These
respondents suggested that BEC needs to exert a stronger presence in SOLEC
planning. This participation is seen as essential to achieve greater integration with
basin programs and to strengthen effectiveness reporting under the GLWQTdt was
also suggested that effort is needed to address issues of coordination and
implementation effectiveness, and that it would be useful for BEC to take a more active
role in doing so.
Are changes required to maximize SOLEC's efficiency and if so what
changes are required?
With a membership of over thirty people, the SSC membership is considered to be very
large. However, this was acknowledged as necessary to ensure that there would be
proper opportunity for representation of a diverse range of stakeholders. Despite its
size, the SSC appears to function quite efficiently. A core group of 6-8 people led by
the SSC Co-Chairs assume the majority of the tasks. This is a manageable number for
implementing the conference program and coordinating the logistics of each event.
SOLEC is generally viewed as being efficiently run. The organization of individual
conferences received praise from the majority of people interviewed. The production of
the daily conference newsletter was noted as being extremely valuable. The "by
invitation only" format of the conference was seen as positive and necessary to keep
the conference focused on science-based issues.
SOLEC administers conference specific evaluation questionnaires to delegates, to
which the response rate is very low. For example, only 32 people completed the
general SOLEC 98 Delegates Survey (Young and Stadler-Salt, 1999). This type of
survey can be a useful and cost-effective method of measuring program performance,
including input to planning and direction setting for future events. More efficient
mechanisms are needed for increasing the response rate of this survey. Some ideas
include: devoting a small portion of the conference to completing the survey, revising
the format of the questionnaire, or distributing it via electronic mail to SOLEC
participants.
The review asked people to put forward suggestions that might help improve the
delivery of the next SOLEC. Many participants in the review did not have specific
SMt «tit ttn fommm Coitacncc
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 20 of 25
-------
suggestions for improving future events due to their high degree of satisfaction with the
status quo. The suggestions put forth can be grouped as conference duration,
breakout sessions and conference structure.
Conference Duration
Both ends of the spectrum are represented in suggestions concerning the length of le
conference. Some feei that the event is too drawn out and could be shortened. The
final day of the conference was singled out as being the least productive. The converse
opinion is that the conference should be lengthened. This group of people indicated
that the current format and duration does not allow enough time to adequately explore
the complex nature of many of the issues that are tabled, particularly during the
breakout sessions. The time issues are twofold. In some instances, it is felt that too
much time is spent in the break-out session bring people up to a common level of
understanding of the topic. When this occurs, there is not enough time left to tackle
more substantive issues. Conversely, some people expressed frustration at break out
sessions where an excessive amount of time is sometimes spent on minute details.
This precluded a broader discussion of the issues.
Break-out Sessions
Breaks out session are generally viewed as being run efficiently. During the review, a
few people did express some frustration at individual breakout sessions they had
attended. Items that caused frustration included situations where the facilitators did not
have a sufficient command of the topic area to effectively moderate the session for the
benefit of all interests present. In other instances it was felt that the facilitator was so
familiar with the session theme that he/she did not effectively represent alternative
views in the summary reporting.
Conference Structure
Networking and informed information exchange is one of the significant benefits of the
conferences according to a strong majority of people interviewed. However a few
people felt that the conference was excessively structured. Not enough free/social time
was prepared to be built into the schedule to encourage spontaneous interaction with
collogues. For these people, SOLEC is the one time where they get to know and
interact with people from different parts of the Basin working on similar issues.
Spontaneous and social interaction is seen, as equally valuable in exchanging
information and ideas as are the structured sessions and event.
When asked if they would consider attending a future SOLEC, the majority of the non-
returning participants interviewed said they would. Most of the respondents In this
group viewed the conference as an excellent binational summary of activities in the
Basin. SOLEC is viewed as a good venue for exposure to new issues such as climate
change and ecosystem impacts. It was rated as doing a good job of "catalyzing" basin-
SBh of MMBtaxMiii Carton*
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 21 of 25
-------
wide issues and providing a forum for the dissemination of research results and for
networking opportunities among a fairly broad base of stakeholder interest.
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 22 of 25
-------
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the review the following recommendations are presente- for
consideration by the Binational Executive Committee and the SOLEC Steering
Committee,
1. SSC and/or BEC should develop a strategic plan or vision for SOLEC. T' ;s vision
should:
review the primary objectives of SOLEC;
clarify the role and expectations of SOLEC (and indicators development) with
respect to other initiatives and programs in the Basin, particularly LaMPs;
lay out the expected outcomes or goals for SOLEC with respect to the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement reporting requirements; and
develop a framework for planning future conferences to ensure that
conference objectives and tangible outcomes are linked to the vision.
2. An effort should be made to increase the relative number of representatives from
certain sectors at future SOLEC events. Groups such as Aboriginal groups, non-
governmental environmental organizations, and municipal/regional governments
could be reimbursed for a portion of their travel expenses. A more proactive
approach to gaining participation from high-level decision makers, particularly those
at the local level would also be beneficial.
Raising the profile of SOLEC through media coverage would assist in attracting
participants. In addition, it would help to engage and inform the general public. This
could be accomplished through the development of a communications strategy or
plan for each conference, and through press releases, a designated press room
area at the conference, targeting media science and environment reporters, and/or
coverage and broadcast by a Canadian Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) crew or a
specialty channel.
3. The degree to which SOLEC influences decision-making is unclear. Thus, results in
terms of Great Lakes benefits are difficult to identify. A cost-effective initiative in this
regard could be a more extensive survey of conference participants. This could be
incorporated into a revised delegate survey at the next event.
In addition, the production of action items and recommendations for follow-up at the
end of each conference would assist in addressing and influencing program issues.
4. The administration process for conference-specific questionnaires should be
modified so that information on SOLEC can be collected more effectively on a
SMI at IMUlBiteafliH* Contend!
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 23 of 25
>
-------
conference-by-conference basis. This could be accomplished by devoting a small
portion of the conference to completing the survey, revising the format of the
questionnaire, or distributing it via electronic mail to SOLEC participants.
sum a t* UM» Ccnymi Ogntam
A*
1*5 Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) Page 24 of 25
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Environment Canada and US EPA, 1998. SOLEC: The State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference, http://www.cciw.ca/solec/what-is.html
Swerhun, Nicole and The LURA Group. 1997. State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 1996 Conference Proceedings. Report prepared for the SOLEC 98
Steering Committee.
Young, Maggie and Nancy Stadler-Salt 1999. State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 1998: Conference Proceedings. Report prepared for the SOLEC 98
Steering Committee.
Completed versions of all SOLEC papers, presentations, proceedings and other reports
are available on the Internet at http://www.cciw.ca/solec/intro.html or
www.epa.aov/qlnpo/solec.
List of Acronyms Used in the Report
SSC SOLEC Steering Committee
BEC Binational Executive Committee
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
GLVVQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
IJC International Joint Commission
RAP Remedial Action Plan
LaMP Lakewide Management Plan
Review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC)
Page 25 of 25
-------
ANNEX I
REVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE LAKES
ECOSYSTEM CONFERENCE
REVIEW TERMS OF REFERENCE
-------
SOLEC REVIEW PLAN
Background
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) are hosted by the U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment Canada (EC) on
behalf of the two Countries. These conferences are held every two years in
response to one reporting requirement of the binational Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. The conferences are intended to report on the state of the
Great Lakes and to integrate scientific information on a basin wide scale. One
major purpose is to reach a large audience of people in the government (at all
levels), corporate and not-for-profit sectors who make decisions that affect the
Lakes.
Objectives of the Review
The objectives of the Review are 1) to determine the degree that SOLEC is
achieving the expected results and 2) to confirm its future direction.
SOLEC Primary Objectives
1. Provide information on the state of the Great lakes ecosystem for the purpose
of strengthening decision making and management in the Basin.
2. Develop support for an integrated system of environmental information to
direct plans and programs.
3. Provide information on existing Great Lakes strategies and build cooperative
actions needed to strengthen and implement them.
4. Provide a forum of improved communication and network building within the
Basin.
(BEC, June 1992)
Scope/Issues
SOLEC's Primary Objectives
1. Are the four primary objectives still relevant?
2. Do the objectives complement the Parties' (EC's and EPA's
program results?
-------
3. Should SOLEC's objectives be modified to maximize its
contribution and if so, what modifications are required?
SOLEC's Effectiveness
4, Did SOLEC 94 meet its objective of assessing the state of tha
Lakes against a set of broad based ad hoc indicators and dia
this objective support SOLEC's primary objectives?
5. Did SOLEC 96 meet its objective of determining the state of the
nearshore ecosystem and the human impacts on it and did this
objective support SOLEC's primary objectives?
6. Did SOLEC 98 meet its objective to begin the process of
establishing a comprehensive, easily understood suite of
indicators that will represent the state of major ecosystem
components across the whole Great Lakes basin and did this
objective support SOLEC's primary objectives?
7. Has SOLEC had an impact on decision-makers such as
agencies and industry?
8. Has SOLEC evolved to meet changing priorities?
9. Are changes required to maximize SOLEC's effectiveness and if
so what changes are required?
SOLEC's Program Management (EC and EPA management/staff)
10. Does SOLEC engage program management/staff effectively?
11. Is clear guidance and direction given to presenters and
participants involved in the conferences?
12.1s BEC or the co-chairs effectively involved in the key decision!
making?
13. Are changes required to maximize SOLEC's efficiency and if so
what changes are required?
Timetable
The Review is to be completed by June, 1999. The contractors portion should
be completed by May, 1999.
-------
Approach
» Interviews: BEC representatives, key clients, Government officials,
decision-makers.
» Analysis of conference review sheets.
» Examination of papers produced.
Report Distribution
» BEC members
Estimated Cost
$20K Cdn
------- |